Label for Genuine Photographs

[clay]

Don't forget non-genuine, non-photographs. i.e. politicians.

Ah, Grasshopper, might the term not also imply the existence of a class of objects made up of "genuine non-photographs"? And it is not with this class that our humble OP has rightly concerned himself? Think on this Grasshopper, while you look around the house for the dictionary to help with your spelling!:o

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Hi all,

sorry about being absent so long but my job stood in the way. So I'm back again to confront your raised objections since my previous post. I am somewhat irritated by the amount of noise. As far as I could see there were two objections concerning the previous post. One from Q.G. and one from Sanders (rolleiflexible) which, to be honest, gave us some concern.

>>
Ulrich, I think the disconnect comes not from
us ignoring the .org suffix, but, rather, your
decision to use the word "genuine." In English,
it sets up the dichotomy with "fake" and it
suggests that only photographs that meet
your criteria are entitled to be considered
"photographs" and all others are false, and,
by necessary implication to an English ear,
lesser works.
<<

Before I sat down to write this reply I had some tee to calm down a little and get a clear mind. Our tea is from Darjeeling in India and is labeled "Fair Trade".
The box of the cookies I had with the tee says, that 52% of the ingredients are from "Fair Trade". Oops, what about the other 48%? Must be obviously from unfair trade! The term "fair" sets up the dichotomy with "unfair". Does it really?
There are lots of products which are traded unlabeled so to say. The potatoes I bought on the market last Saturday direct from the farmer for instance. Labeling this deal as "Fair Trade" simply doesn't make sense but it is with no doubt fair. In fact as far as I know only about 1.5% of all food products traded in Germany are "Fair Trade". The other 98.5% include obviously unfair traded products (most of the bananas and most of the coffee for instance) but most of it is just trade.

Your objection gave us some headache. We in fact weren't aware of the problem. In German the term "genuine" exists as well (without the ending "e" of cause) and does mean: aufrichtig (truthful), authentisch (authentic), wahr (true), echt (real), original (original). What the opposite meaning is depends on the context it is used in and surely includes "Fälschung" (fake) as well but also "Kopie" (copy), "ähnlich" (similar), "abgeleitet (derived), "verbessert"(advanced), "erweitert" (enhaced) or "verfeinert" (refined). So not being genuine does not mean a depreciation per se in German. If this is really different in English we will have to reconsider our position.


>>
I was the one who offered up Halsmann's
Dali as an example. It might be a photograph
made by a composite process, but I am certain
that Halsmann would have been shocked to
hear that his photograph was not in fact a
photograph, much less a "genuine" photograph.
<<

First I really thought you got me here. Marco B. fortunately did know better. But nevertheless you will easily find an appropriate example. Not the picture by Henry Peach Robinson but I suggest looking at Man Ray's. I think Robinsons picture must have been taken in the studio in a coulisse with a painted background. In the late 19th century with the then usual long exposures it was impossible to take such picture in nature. And every contemporary knew that. Here are other experts who may now better but if I am right of cause it would comply with our label.
What about pictures by Man Ray now? Some simply would not comply with the label as do some by Gursky and many others. You may call them whatever you like. Including genuine photographs. Just don't put our label on. So what?

@ Ray Rogers
>>
I think I actually welcome your idea, especially if you are able to find a more robust term and defniton.
<<

The core of our idea is that we are not seeking for some bullet proof definition of genuine photographs. We just put up some restrictions and show with the label that we comply with these restrictions. We have tried to find terms which embrace all and every photographic technique traditionally used by photographers (no matter what kind of sensor is used to record the picture, mind you) and even some new -stitching for instance. In fact, if we could find viable terms we even would embrace composites that don't try to appear as if they were not. Not the least out of sympathy for the work of Man Ray, Gursky and many others. Our target are composites which try to appear as unaltered photographs without being such. We must draw the line somewhere so unfortunately some pictures which have all our appreciation must do without label. But does that matter?

@Q.G.
>>
That doesn't work, Ulrich. You can't brush away objections by not dealing with what they are, assuming the things they are objections too are not known instead.
<<

Thanks to apug my English has improved a lot in the last years. But this sentence ist too much for me.

>>
I have read your definition. And it does not work.
For instance: the texture of the subject, for instance, is altered by choice of film, processing, paper, paper grade, processing, etc.
Filters on the lens?
There is no way you can't.
Colours? Exactly the same.
<<

Granted, without the rest of our statement, the sentence "the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered" is mistakable. In the explanatory part of the text we make clear that with "basically" we mean "not in a way that a red car is made blue in the final picture". We admit, that whether this part is necessary is disputable.

>>
Your making a very strange decision, being that it is o.k. to do whatever the craft allows upto and including the moment the print is dry, but that you're not allowed to do anything after.
There is no magic in that moment, that would change manipulation, from something part of the legitimate process, into something that is the biggest evil known to the craft/art.
<<

Here you pin pointed exactly the problem where all attempts to define manipulation have been overthrown.
Our approach is different. We do not even try to define what manipulation is. We know already that all attempts failed and must fail, as manipulation is inherently to photography. We only say what not has to be done to carry our label. What a manipulation is, is not the least our concern.

>>
One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look quite real... and the illusion that they are merely being "recorded" rather than being "created".... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?
<<

You got it. Of cause everyone who gets his holiday pictures from the lab knows that photographs do not show reality. The gras is greener than it really was the sky is not so blue as it was and so on. But everything is there, husband Harry in his deck chair, the sea, the grass and everything. Half a year later they are divorced, husband Harry is photoshopped out and lover Louis is photoshopped in. Shall it still be a genuine photograph? The sky is not so blue as it really was and the grass greener anyway so lover Louis doesn't add any significant? This is not the concept of a photograph the broad public does have. Photography has a reputation of a close link between the moment the shutter was tripped and what it shows in the picture. And some sort of graphic exploits this reputation. That is our concern.


I am out until Monday. So please do not expect any reaction from me on your posts until Tuesday.


Ulrich

[nick mulder]

...Not the picture by Henry Peach Robinson but I suggest looking at Man Ray's. I think Robinsons picture must have been taken in the studio in a coulisse with a painted background. In the late 19th century with the then usual long exposures it was impossible to take such picture in nature. ...
Ulrich

While its true re. film speed and I'd need to research it a bit more I am still not sure about the 'must' you have concluded on here. I am still reasonably sure it is a composite - it is used as an example of a composite along with more of his works in 'The Keepers of Light' for instance...

By the by anyway, in trying somewhat to emulate the visual effects of painting I think a fair chunk of Pictorialism wouldn't pass your grade - its true that even at the time photographers were reactionary to the style (f64). But what other art history class does pictorialism really belong in other than photography ? Ask anyone in a gallery looking at an example 'is this a genuine photograph' ? If they were aware of the technicalities or not what do you expect the answer to be ? (perhaps filter out some of that 'irritating noise' to help make the mental simulation run smoother).

I'll admit that Pictorialism is my current fascination, still learning and it may be that I'm bagging on about it too much (?) - only way to progress is to get in the mix huh ...

[SilverGlow]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

This is udder craap, sorry.

Ansel Adams use to say about photography, that it was a big fat LIE.

People would point to his compositions and say "wow, that place is beautiful" and he would respond something like "no, not so much...my picture greatly improved that scene".

Photography is a lie because the DR is narrower then our human vision, and there are about a million things one can do in post processing to skew that reality. In photography we often make the subject/scene look a certain way, and most often then not, that way is not how it really is. We can make the subject look better, worse, the landscape look better, worse, brighter, darker, and this is often the case.

Photography, film and digital, is a big fat lie, and this is not a bad thing.

I find it exceedingly laughable when people point to film and say "this captures truth"...what a load! Of course I can say this for any and all meduims too, including digital.

[Q.G.]

This is udder craap, sorry.

Ansel Adams use to say about photography, that it was a big fat LIE.

People would point to his compositions and say "wow, that place is beautiful" and he would respond something like "no, not so much...my picture greatly improved that scene".

Photography is a lie because the DR is narrower then our human vision, and there are about a million things one can do in post processing to skew that reality. In photography we often make the subject/scene look a certain way, and most often then not, that way is not how it really is. We can make the subject look better, worse, the landscape look better, worse, brighter, darker, and this is often the case.

Photography, film and digital, is a big fat lie, and this is not a bad thing.

I find it exceedingly laughable when people point to film and say "this captures truth"...what a load! Of course I can say this for any and all meduims too, including digital.

This too is "udder craap".

Yes, it is!
Because it is exactly what i'm saying...

[SilverGlow]

This too is "udder craap".

Yes, it is!
Because it is exactly what i'm saying...

Not true, because you wrote:

"Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image."

[Q.G.]

Here you pin pointed exactly the problem where all attempts to define manipulation have been overthrown.
Our approach is different. We do not even try to define what manipulation is. We know already that all attempts failed and must fail, as manipulation is inherently to photography. We only say what not has to be done to carry our label. What a manipulation is, is not the least our concern.

Then you should perhaps remove all use of the term.
It is at the core of your statement: not manipulated.

And you do indeed try to 'define' it. You list what 'manipulations' are allowed without affecting the "genuine" status ("What are the tolerable postprocessing steps [...]"), and what would be too much.
Completely arbitrarily: what you do not define indeed is where exactly you draw the line, and - more importantly - how and why.
As it is, it would be impossible to know what a "genuine" photograph would be. Impossible to know when to use the label and/or why.

[Rolleigraf]

Then you should perhaps remove all use of the term.
It is at the core of your statement: not manipulated.

And you do indeed try to 'define' it. You list what 'manipulations' are allowed without affecting the "genuine" status ("What are the tolerable postprocessing steps [...]"), and what would be too much.
Completely arbitrarily: what you do not define indeed is where exactly you draw the line, and - more importantly - how and why.
As it is, it would be impossible to know what a "genuine" photograph would be. Impossible to know when to use the label and/or why.

As being one of the founders of GPO (genuine-photograph.org), let me say a word about this:

You are right Q.G., we are (at least implicite) giving a definition for manipulation - the one, which is used by us in the context of our project. This definition is surely not universally valid - but it expresses our understanding of manipulation in the context of photography. Others may have a different opinion on this. When you read our statement, you will see that we chose to distinguish between alteration (allowed for Genuine Photographs in the sense of GPO) and manipulation (not allowed for Genuine Photographs). These reason for making these definitions is simply convenience - as it is for all definitions ever been made.

This leads me to another thing, which seems to be misunderstood by many of the readers here: We are not giving a definition, what genuine photography is. We are defining, what Genuine Photography is (again) in the context of our project, i.e., what it means if you use the label shown on the first page of this thread (ok, I mean the label shown in Ulrich´s post, not the ones in the replys ;-)).

Regarding the use of the word "genuine": Of course it is provocative. IMHO, we have to be provocatibe, to catch people´s attention. But in fact, the thing is not about "genuine" photography and "non-genuine" or "fake" photography:
"genuine photography" - the combination itself - is almost a pleonasm, like "free gift", "tuna fish" and many others (honestly, I looked up these ones at Wikipedia, since the ones I know are all in German). Of course there is nothing like non-genuine photography. Photography can be roughly translated with light-painting.
So if we are talking about photography, it should be clear that we are talking about pictures which are being made by recording light on a light-sensitive medium. If everyone sticked to this definition, we would have no problem. But the fact is that computer artists use this term for their composites/photo manipulations/photo look-a-likes. So, to make clear that we are talking about the real photography, the one which is done with light-sensitive media and by pressing the shutter of a camera and not by hitting drag&drop in Photoshop, we have to say "genuine photography", to make a distinction between those photography-based images and the images, which we consider as photography. Its sad, but we are more or less forced to do so. See also our website on this.

We are aware of the fact that every photograph always is a subjective, biased image of the physical reality. Of course it is being influenced by the choice of the recording medium and processing, so one could say it is always "manipulated". But it is an image of the physical reality - not an imitation of the physical reality, and not an image of an artificial reality.

And finally, let me explain our reasons to create this project GPO and the label for Genuine Photography (although it´s difficult for me to explain it in English):
The purpose of this label is not to increase our images' "worth", or even to mark other images as less worthy. But we want to inform the viewer, which methods of operation underlie our images - especially that we do not use postproduction "tricks" to create our images.
With all the differences in mind, I think we three have one thing in common:
We try to show in our images that everyday things, circumstances or scenes can be fascinating, aesthetically appealing, perturbing (is this the right word?), daunting, breathtaking, stunning, and so on. We are proud of our traditional, non-manipulative (in our sense, see above) working method, which significantly supports our works´ intention.

Let me end with a quote by Garry Winogrand, which at least for me maybe describes best, what is the driving force behind my engagement for GPO and photography in general: "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed."

Regards,
Jan

[chriscrawfordphoto]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

[Nick Hermanns]

Chris,
everything you wrote matches my opinion - but: it has nothing to do with the idea of "Genuine Photograph".
I don't care eather if a photograph has been shot by chip oder film. I also do scan my negs and print them.
The topic we're talking about is: is a photoshopped composite a "real" photograph or something different?
I think it's something different.

Best,

Nick